We need a science to save us from science.
Animal rights activists talk about cruelty and torture, some backing their assertions by publishing out-of-date photographs of 'experiments' banned long ago. This is a misrepresentation. The work we do is performed with compassion, care, humanity and humility. I have never seen an animal suffer pain.
In fact, many nations currently refuse to support embryonic stem cell research of any kind.
I believe that we as the leader of the Free World must provide important leadership on the ethical parameters, the ethical constraints that this research requires.
There are many alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, alternatives with great potential. We need to support these and oppose creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it.
To be sure, nothing is more important to the integrity of the universities . . . than a rigorously enforced divorce from war-oriented research and all connected enterprises.
We are here simply to decide whether Congress should take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund the destruction of human embryos for research.
Stem cell research must be carried out in an ethical manner in a way that respects the sanctity of human life.
It is a failure of imagination and methodology to claim that it is necessary to experiment on millions of people without their consent in order to produce good data science.
Researchers find it very necessary to keep blinkers on. They don't want to admit that the animals they are working with have feelings.
We can continue to make significant strides in the scientific community by exploring new stem cell research methods that do not include destroying human embryos.
We pray that every field of science may contribute in bringing happiness - not disaster - to human beings.
Just as we have endeavored to maintain a separation between church and state, so too do I believe that we should try to maintain a comparable separation between basic biomedical research and politics.
Some dreamers demand that scientists only discover things that can be used for good.
If we studied human beings which can include human genes, human blood samples, and human behavior, then you can leave the animals out of the labs and you can leave them off your plate.
We have a lot to gain through furthering stem cell research, but medical breakthroughs should be fundamentally about saving, not destroying, human life. Therefore, I support stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo.
As we begin this debate, I am confident that we will hear the supporters of this bill argue in the name of Ronald Reagan that this research is consistent with his long-held views about the sanctity of life.
Even painless research is fascism, supremacism, because the act of confinement is traumatizing in itself.
To date, embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single medical treatment, where ethical, adult stem cell research has produced some 67 medical miracles.
No one likes doing primate experiments, but some research can only be done on monkeys.
Right now, scientists are in exactly the same position as Renaissance painters, commissioned to make the portrait the patron wants done, And if they are smart, they'll make sure their work subtly flatters the patron. Not overtly. Subtly.
Researchers should always consider ethical concerns on scientific research and disclose their data to the public. Scientists also need to discuss issues surrounding their research with those who are concerned.
Physiological experiment on animals is justifiable for real investigation, but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity.
There is no way now to get around some use of embryos. But my goal is to avoid using them.
I've taken stuff from people, too. You know though, if you steal from one person, you're just a thief. But if you steal from everyone, that's research.
